When it was already a choir, we came up with the idea of the Queer theory, not so long ago, and it promoted debates among friends. Young friends told us that the sexes aren't just two, they're a blast. We, on the other hand, are two, from the point of view of their role in reproduction, and that is important.

It's a sterile discussion, because it's more ideological than physiological. What, well thought out, why sex should be the dominant and most universal feature in the distribution of people? On it, gender is constructed, that is, the set of characters, attitudes and activities attributed to each sex; according to the gender theory, these characteristics are not at all natural, but cultural; that is, they are used to justify that women are subjected to men. And yet, here and everywhere, sex is the first label that is attributed to the newborn, although in cases of doubt it can lead to great suffering when the inconvenience of choice appears.
It's not denying the existence of sex, it's a biological reality, like skin color. But there is no reason why sex should be a relevant criterion for the classification of people, since the preference given to it for this is arbitrary. The reference to it is therefore exclusive to some areas and, first and foremost, to the identity card.

Race and religion have also been the subject of documentary manifestations or manifestations, always with the aim of discriminating – when it has not been done for the purpose of promoting genocide –. Marking sex is not innocent, it's a political gesture, it's a mindset. They have already taken it off in Switzerland and Germany and, although that does not wipe out sexism, it is a step forward.

The name is more crude, forcing everyone to be on the part they have been assigned. It has been an indefinite time in the Basque area, and as a result we know both Haiti and Olatz girls and boys. Now, the Spanish Civil Code orders that the Basque Nomenclature be more rigorously banned from giving girls the names they have for masculine women, and vice versa.
And yes, because gender theory has very powerful and effective rivals. It is not a scientific fact, but a mistaken opinion, it has recently been proclaimed by some officials on the French Right, who have asked for their mention of school books to be withdrawn. The Vatican has come from behind in Kusi-kusis: according to theologians (both scientists and scientists), gender is not a cultural reality, but a matter of sex and biology; questioning the intrinsic inequality of the sexes is more dangerous than Marxism, because it involves a paradigm shift and imposes on the family upside down.

We have no doubt that it is a great revolution to send the devil a axis that has underpinned people. That's why they preach to us over and over again that women and men are different and complementary. Very sweet. The problem is that this difference carries with it a hierarchization (intrinsic, yes) and that keeping the former one cannot be believed that the latter can be eliminated. There is no alternative: either we keep the genera with the blood and the pains they cause, or we deny the genders and something terrible can happen. We know what the first option has given, the second one is to be seen, but it will be difficult to get uglier than the other. Do you want to run the test? Let us see, take away the importance of the sexes, ruin the tyranny of gender and say that peace is with everyone.